Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>>>>>"Michael" == Michael R Bernstein <webmaven@cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> Michael> Doesn't that make open peer-review *more* important for
> Michael> pharmaceuticals?
>
>Not particularly. According to Steve McConnell, "open" (ie, "I'll
>look at it if and when I feel like it") peer review can't hold a
>candle to review by a team of expert professionals. This is going to
>hold even more true for medical experiments. Making it open (ie,
>requiring publication of the patent application as well as the patent
>awarded) is very unlikely to save any lives.
>
>
On the flip side, the Human Genome project has the capacity to save
lives and is fairly open (if not completely so). Doctors presently use
statistics for everything - an example being an aspirin a day reduces
the risk of heart attack. And yet, the Human Genome Project has shown
that this only works on every 1 out of 300.
We're not living in a world where statistics are as worthwhile anymore.
And in the medical community, I see potential for 'Open Medicine' in
that doctors around the world can study the latest things that have
worked - and have not. The application of this knowledge is up to the
individual doctor.
Steve McConnell has a good point as well - but that same point works
*for* Open Medicine instead of against it. Until it's legal to
impersonate a doctor, that point stays.
--
Taran Rampersad
cnd@knowprose.com
http://www.linuxgazette.comhttp://www.a42.comhttp://www.worldchanging.comhttp://www.knowprose.comhttp://www.easylum.net
"The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed
but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men." — John F.
Kennedy